Relocation cases are among the hardest decisions a judge can be asked to make. They pit legitimate interests against one another. A parent’s right to pursue opportunity and build a new life versus a child’s need for stability and connection with both parents. There is rarely a clean answer. But sometimes, the right answer is clear and a court has the courage to say so.
In July 2026, Mr. Hansra had the privilege of representing a father in the Provincial Court of British Columbia as he fought to keep his 11-year-old daughter from being relocated approximately 800 kilometres away. The parties were never in a romantic relationship, but when the father learned he was going to be a dad, he moved provinces to be close to his daughter. He was there from the beginning. In 2015, the parties obtained a Family Court Order providing the father with liberal and generous parenting time, including two days per week. That arrangement worked for over a decade.
In 2021, the mother married her current husband, and together they have a younger son. When the stepfather received a job offer in Prince George, complete with a large signing incentive and other financial benefits, the mother served a Notice of Relocation, seeking to move the child to Prince George. The father said no. His relationship with his daughter was not something he was willing to sacrifice for someone else’s career advancement.
Through his counsel, Mr. Hansra, the father argued that the relocation would devastate his relationship with his daughter, uproot her from the only community she had ever known, and that the evidence before the court was insufficient to support such a drastic interim order.
Judge Loucks applied the framework under British Columbia’s Family Law Act, alongside the best interests of the child analysis. The Court carefully examined how an interim relocation order would affect the child’s stability, her relationships, and the status quo. The evidence before the court painted a clear picture. The father-daughter bond was strong and active. Despite the mother exercising most of the parenting time on paper, the father was an important and regular presence in his daughter’s life. His actual parenting time had been more generous than what the original Order contemplated. Under the mother’s proposed plan, his time would have been reduced by at least 25% and potentially cut in half. He would no longer be able to attend school events, support extracurricular activities, or simply be present in his daughter’s day-to-day life.
Through a Hear the Child report, the child herself told the court that not having her father nearby “would be hard.” She expressed a desire for more time with her father, not less. The Court also considered that the child had lived her entire life in the Lower Mainland, and that moving her on an interim basis, only to potentially have a trial judge order her return, would compound instability rather than reduce it. As for the financial justification, the Court found that the family’s situation was “in no way precarious.” Financial betterment, standing alone, is a small component of a child’s best interests.
The application for interim relocation was dismissed.
This decision is an important one. Interim relocation orders carry enormous, often irreversible consequences. Once a child moves, new ties form, old ones weaken, and the status quo shifts. A trial months later cannot easily undo that damage. Judge Loucks understood this and properly held that the evidence had to be sufficient and not speculative before uprooting a child on an interim basis.
This case reaffirms something that should never need reaffirming: parents who show up matter. Mr. Hansra’s client moved provinces to be in his daughter’s life. He was present, consistent, and committed and the Court recognized it. His role in his daughter’s life was not going to be reduced to a handful of visits per year based on incomplete evidence and financial convenience.
For parents facing relocation disputes, this decision sends a clear message: the court will not rubber-stamp a move simply because a new job is available or because one household’s income might increase. The analysis is child-centred, and the bar for an interim order, which can effectively decide the case before trial, is appropriately high.
Family law is not easy. Relocations are gut-wrenching for everyone involved. But then there are days like this one, when a parent learns that his or her child is staying, and that the bond they have built over the years will not be severed on an interim basis. For Mr. Hansra, this is what makes the work worth it.